Bajarin is the president of Creative Strategies Inc., a technology industry analysis and market-intelligence firm in Silicon Valley. He contributes to Big Picture, an opinion column that appears every Monday on Techland.

Last August, I wrote an article on our personal site called “What Really Scares Apple’s Competitors.” In it I stated that Apple’s competitors really fear Apple’s sixth sense – its ability to anticipate what the customer wants even if customers don’t know they want it.

Many believe this came from Steve Jobs’ “gut feel” about products, since Apple doesn’t do focus groups or any real customer research at all. While that was part of it, the reality is that Apple’s execs create a product that they want and would like to use themselves, and that becomes their guideline for product ideas and designs.

Apple also does not necessarily invent products. It takes ones that are on the market and makes them better. For example, Apple did not invent MP3 players, but the iPod made the MP3 player better. The same goes for the iPhone and iPad.

But Apple takes this even further by using its products as a front-end to apps and services, which creates a great ecosystem for its customers. This not only sets Apple apart from competitors, but also makes the company very difficult to compete against. That becomes a very scary issue for Apple’s competitors.

I recently got a request to consult a giant, multinational tech company. This company wanted us to research the potential impact of Amazon on its future business. Although we did not get the project, it started us down our own research path about this issue, and we found out that Amazon is causing great fear among almost all tech companies in ways similar to Apple.

The reason is that while Amazon is not a tech company specifically, it’s an extremely broad consumer goods company that just happens to use things like the Kindle and Kindle Fire HD as a mobile front-end to access its broad array of products and services.

This became really clear at the recent Amazon Kindle Fire HD launch event in L.A. when Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos stated that Amazon does not make money on hardware. Instead, these handheld devices are mobile access points to the various products and services Amazon offers. Sure, they are e-book readers and tablets in their own right and therefore are quite versatile in what value they deliver to customers, but make no mistake; they serve as vehicles for users to learn about and purchase a whole lot of products and services Amazon has to offer.

Now imagine how the PC and even consumer electronics tech companies, which are hardware based, look at Amazon. Amazon, like Apple, is totally rewriting the rules of the tech game. Because of increased competition in hardware, which forces competing vendors into price wars, the profits on hardware are almost gone. Some vendors still play the numbers game, hoping to sell enough products in volume to hit margins between 5% and 10%.

But there is an interesting difference in the way Apple goes after the market as opposed to Amazon. Apple gets the best of best of both worlds. It still has margins of at least 27% on all hardware products it sells, and it makes money on apps, content and services. On the other hand, Amazon is content with making no margins on hardware, and getting profits on products and services that are purchased through its devices instead.

These two business models make it very difficult for any competitors to make real profits if they only have hardware to sell. This is because — especially in Amazon’s case — the profits come from the products and services people buy by way of the hardware. And at the moment, no PC company is capable of delivering its own ecosystem of products and services that even comes close to matching what Amazon has to offer its customers.

Interestingly, in the request we got from this multinational company concerned about Amazon’s impact on its future, the company was even thinking of exploring the purchase of a major retailer that had hard goods to sell online as part of its strategy to potentially compete with Amazon. However, Amazon has done such a brilliant job of creating its own hard goods store and distribution centers that there are not many online retailers that could even deliver the scope and breadth of what Amazon has today.

By the way, PC companies are not the only ones who fear Amazon. This week, Walmart stopped carrying all Amazon Kindle devices. Walmart finally woke up and realized that the Kindle tablets were actually competitive to its own business. Walmart served as a showroom for Amazon products. Walmart found that people would go to its stores to check out a product they wanted in a physical form, and if it was cheaper on Amazon, they would buy it there. This is especially true if they were Amazon Prime customers, which meant they paid no shipping fees and got the product cheaper. Earlier in the year, Target stopped selling Kindles for the same reason.

Amazon, Apple and even Google are proving to be 900-pound gorillas and direct competitors to the PC companies and big retailers. And while Amazon and Google don’t manufacture their own PCs, their business model centered around selling apps and services is very disruptive. This model is now causing all of these PC players to fear Amazon, a company that was not even on the competitive radar 18 months ago.

his whole line of thought is counter-productive People argue endlessly over the semantics of whether Apple invents, innovates or improves. What matters is value. Measuring the value added is far more important than the label used to describe that value.Read more: how to unlock an iphone

I think everybody forgot when APPLE was struggling as company not long ago due to the lack of compeling and innovative products. Then Steve Jobs came back to APPLE to save the day. Todays APPLE dont have Steve Jobs anymore, so I wonder if that "magic and innovation" is really within APPLE or it is gone now that Steve is not around anymore....and by looking at the iPhone4s and iPhone5 I dont really see any real innovation going on...APPLE fans may say that iPhone5 is the coolest thing on the world but reality will come soonner or later.

Sorry, it is of no importance if Apple invents or not. In the end it is not the technical superior product that will win, but the product that gives you the best palette of software. This was the lesson of the war between VHS and BetaMax. It is in the end the software that sells the hardware, not the opposite. This is the reason why I will have to prefer the less excellent Iphone 5 to the technically superior Samsung Galaxy.

Funny these stores are realizing this now. Shoppers have been doing this kind of price comparison for years. Why do you think there are so many empty, abandoned Borders and Best Buy stores collectinig bird poo with skaters in the parking lot.

Uh no, dimwit, the quality of "business modeling software" has d1ck to do with it. There are so many abandoned Borders and Best Buy stores because Amazon has put one of them out of business, and is working on the other.

Uh no, dimwit, the quality of "business modeling software" has dick to do with it. There are abandoned Borders and Best Buy stores because Amazon put one of them out of business, and is in the process of doing the same to the other.

This commoditization of computers and hardware is exactly why IBM divested its venerable PC business in 2005 in favor of software and business services. Some thought Palmisano was crazy, but he was really just forward-thinking!

Amazon a threat, don't see it. I frequently will use them as a bench mark/starting point on pricing when shopping online. Aside from a difficult item to locate, Amazon rarely gets my business at the end of the day. Amazon will never be the first and last place to shop for me.

I'm tired of Articles like this kissing up to Amazon. They barely make a profit and their valuation is out of control. Their growth has slowed considerably and will continue to slow. They are not a global company. The Kindle is junk, my money would go to iPad long before I'd spend a dime towards that thing. If they don't make money on the Hardware with the way copies of Music, Books, and Movies are shared on the internet, then how will they make a profit? Bezos wants to charge for things that are becoming easier and easier to share with less and less profit to make. This Article says he 's thinking ahead, I think he's way behind.

eBay does a much larger volume of Merchandise and is much, much, more profitable than Amazon. You can find better deals on eBay with just a little due diligence. They also have Paypal. Amazon has nothing like that yet is almost double eBay in valuation, a complete absurdity to me. When is the a$$ kissing going to stop? Reality needs to set in.

I have no position in Amazon long or short, but fail to understand the infatuation with this Company.

Ebay and Amazon are way to different to make a comparison. Amazon offers a more relaxed situation for buyers, they will take prepaid cards for almost anything. While Ebay offers Pay-pal, which is hand over your bank account please, which does not protect the buyer, but only Ebay and the sellers. There is a growing number of people that have been burned by handing over our bank accounts, and even know it has not happened with Pay pal yet, it is bound to happen eventually, and when it does watch out... Ebay was great when they allowed different payment methods..

Bullcrap. This is an idiotic refrain that has reached ridiculous proportions. What fully touch based GUI mobile computer did Apple "improve" to make the iPhone? It's only been 5 years since Apple's iPhone decimated the major industry players in mobile. Surely your memory extends past 6 years ago?

150 million in non-voting stock. For a company that had 6 billion in the bank. Try again.

Android has many differences with Windows, but it's their similarity as a open platform that makes many to believe in a repeat of history.

It won't. All the combined forces of the tech industry could not finish Apple when they introduced the iPod and took over the PMP industry. But somehow, someday, maybe, these same incompetents will "defeat" Apple in mobile.

You are just saying iPhone is modern while the others are primitive. I can see you love Apple so nothing more to discuss here.

>> Apple was defeated so thoroughly that Apple is now one of the largest, most profitable companies in the world.

I said Windows defeating Mac. That's still true.Also don't forget that the first thing Steven Jobs did after his return was to invite Bill Gates to Apple and get a lot of money from Microsoft, which in fear of the antitrust case at the time had to keep Apple afloat as a competitor. If that is not a thorough defeat, I don't know what is.

Now Apple has been successful in new markets. Good for them. But that doesn't change history. Of course it is possible for iPad to revenge for Mac. Actually I would like that to happen but that remains to be seen.

>> And this "Android as Windows" thing?

Are you trying to twist my words? If you meant to quote me, you are not supposed to rephrase. I am just saying Android could defeat iOS in the long run because it is an open ecosystem in contrast of Apple's warded garden. Android has many differences with Windows, but it's their similarity as a open platform that makes many to believe in a repeat of history.

>> and made former PC giants practically irrelevant.

I don't know what are the "PC giants" you have in mind or what you mean by "practically irrelevant", but Windows still owns desktop and laptop computers. And almost everyone would still consider Microsoft the PC giant.

>> which will be all but a memory before the end of this year

I heard Apple has been developing the map for three years. We'll see how accurate your prediction will turn out to be.

Finally, if we both are able to make our points in an intelligent way, I don't really understand your inclination of using inflammatory words throughout your arguments, especially when sometimes you were actually arguing against your own straw-man. In case you say what's the problem with a few little words, well, this is like if you keep dealing with something stinking, you might end up stinking too.

First modern smart phone. A fully multi-touch enabled interface built purely for mobile computing. Not a phone that happened to have a good browser, but a portable computer that happened to make phone calls.

Android is set to repeat the feat of Windows defeating Mac in the 80s

Yes. Apple was defeated so thoroughly that Apple is now one of the largest, most profitable companies in the world.

And this "Android as Windows" thing? Naive and idiotic. Microsoft, despite it's flaws, produced an OS that ran across multiple vendors hardware and gave an identical user experience for millions, eventually tens and hundreds of millions of users. Where is this consistent user experience in the fractured Android ecosystem, with it's one-of skinned interfaces and utter lack of updates for even current devices as well and the strangling of services and current OSes by OEMs and carriers? Never mind the disposal 80 dollar tablets and free phones that take no part in and do not provide any revenue or support to the putative Android ecosystem.

Face it. You use the market share argument because by every other metric, Apple is clobbering Android. Only 1, ONE Android phone seller is majorly profitable, and the rest are losing money hand over fist or breaking even.

Apple has no savior this time

This time? Apple has broken the backs of the companies that once defined mobile and made former PC giants practically irrelevant, reliant as they are to have Apple show them the future. If you think this Maps kerfuffle, which will be all but a memory before the end of this year, is going to have any long term impact on Apple, you are sadly mistaken

Every single faux tragedy that the foolish tech press has latched on to concerning Apple's supposed "failures" has evaporated, leaving nothing but histrionic articles full of strident pronouncements that never come to pass.

"Mapgate" will be exactly the same. All sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That's exactly the angle and Apple was just lucky to be at the right time.

And that's exactly wrong and a thoroughly inept perversion of history.

Apple was there first. The Googleberry Android Blackberry clones that were being worked on prior to the iPhone prove that conclusively. The iPhone was released and everyone that didn't get an iPhone like product out the door is dead or dying.

That's exactly the angle and Apple was just lucky to be at the right time. But without it, we would still have android with a better map, bigger screens, a more affordable price, and a lot less fan boys.

Apple really should enjoy it while it lasts, and sue everyone while it still can.

Are you really going to go with the angle that Apple's iPhone was just the natural progression from those miserable Windows gimmicky tablets? That all Apple did was put multitouch gestures over top of some icons and call it an OS?

Because that's not what happened, no matter how much people try to downplay Apple's products. If all Apple did was ride a wave that was already cresting, why is it Apple has to do it first and then the competition copies Apple? Microsoft and the entire mobile industry had 10 years or more to do something new and inventive with mobile and all that ever happened was that Microsoft put the Start menu on a 3" screen with the resolution of a Lite-Bright.

There was no iPhone before the iPhone. There was no iPad before the iPad. There was no Mac OS before the Mac OS. Having to cobble together 12 different devices from 6 different companies and pretend that this means that the iPhone was iterative is only possible if you ignore the fact that no one gave us Apple's products and designs before Apple made them.

This whole line of thought is counterproductive. People argue endlessly over the semantics of whether Apple invents, innovates or improves. What matters is value. Apple unquestionably adds value to things such as MP3 players, smartphones and tablets. Measuring the value added is far more important than the label used to describe that value.

It matters because Apple is patenting almost every improvement they made and use those patents to go after competitors. The problem is some of the improvements are trivial and have been done before but no body bothered to patent them.

So in the eyes of people in the industry, Apple's behavior is tantamount to monopolizing fresh air and trying to sell it. That's why many consider it very unethical and thus despicable.

You are kidding right? In response to a critique of your original post, you merely said my reply was "pointless". So you can't defend your strident claims, then wail like a child when you are called on it. Did I hurt your feel bads?

No beef. I don't even mind they use the term "design patent". But do you agree that they are not inventions? For most people patent means invention and Apple's marketing effort takes advantage of that.

Why is your beef with Apple? It seems your concerns relate more to what engineering or technology should and should not be patentable. I would imagine this determination falls under the US PTO, not Apple. If Apple goes after a patent and is awarded it and the court finds in favor of upholding that patent, I gotta say, I think enough people have been involved that this patent is a reasonable one. These people are not, part and parcel, buffoons and certainly, at the least, rise to the level of Internet commenters, no?

Apple is patenting almost every improvement they made and use those patents to go after competitors.

That's what a smart technology company does. It's up to the courts to determine which patents are actually valid, a point that the ADHD addled tech blogs for the most part seem to miss.

There is also the memory hole that seems to envelope tech reporting these days: Apple has been here before. They watched their advantage evaporate thru bad licensing deals and third rate ripoffs that were never challenged, and by the time the blatant copying was addressed, the elements of the desktop that Apple had introduced were so common that their claims were invalidated.

This isn't the 90s any more. Apple will do everything in their power to protect their IP. It's that simple, and it's their right to do so.

Apple's behavior is tantamount to monopolizing fresh air

Except for the glaring and seemingly suppressed fact that Apple is the one that made the air fresh. The iPhone changed the industry. Everyone who didn't quickly follow Apple's lead is dead or dying. Apple did that by introducing an original, forward thinking product and they are entitles to protect their ideas. The time of Apple being the free Ramp;D lab for the entire tech industry is over.

For example Samsung got sued for using a wall of icons like iPhone. Maybe Apple did it first on a phone, but many have had a wall of icons on the desktop already.

So this is probably indeed a design novelty on a phone, but does it qualify as an invention? The patent office obviously has lower the bar for patents. (To their credit, they do call them design patents, to distinguish from other patents. But this leads to misleading claims to invention.)

If you can *prove* that something patented was in common use (or even not-so-common use) before it was patented, that voids the patent. The problem is that for all these seemingly trivial things Apple's patented, no one actually did them before. They might have thought about it, or the iPhone might have made it so ubiquitous as to seem like it had been done before, but they were, at the time, unique. Otherwise the patent wouldn't stand.

My view is Apple has a lot of frivolous patents. And that view is supported by many online discussions and reports. Maybe Nokia is equally bad, but that doesn't change the fact that Apple still has a lot of frivolous patents.

If you don't know about patents, that's fine. But what you makes you think you know my view is misguided or not?

EDIT: A few people seem to think the issue is whether they are patents or not. No, we are talking about whether they are inventions or not.

Because the court also grants patents to designs, a court decision does not determine whether it is invention or not.

Nonsense. You're imposing your own misguided views on the industry. Patent battles go on all time. Last year Apple paid 600 million dollars to Nokia in a patent settlement. Where was your faux outrage then?

Let's let the court's settle these matters. They're better prepared that you or I to decide what is and what is not patentable.

You missed the point. Apple improves on existing technology. Yet they act like they INVENTED something in order to keep competitors from improving on the same existing technology. Apple would prefer nobody else MADE better mouse traps other than themselves.

Ahm.. that describes pretty much every tech company, if not company in general. All inventions are improvements, but you talk about them like 'inventions' and most companies would prefer if they were the only one doing so.